Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 22STCV02081, Date: 2022-08-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV02081    Hearing Date: August 30, 2022    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s motion to quash is GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART. The subpoena is narrowed to pest control records for the units at issue, common areas, and any unit that shares a wall, ceiling, and/or floor with Plaintiffs.

On 1/18/2022, Lidubina Martinez and  32 others filed suit against David F. Freeman, individually and as trustee of the Avid F. Freeman Living Trust dated 3/20/2014, Monarch Apartments Owner, LLC, and Crescent Canyon Corp., alleging: (1) breach of implied warranty of habitability; (2) tortious breach of implied warranty of habitability; (3) negligence; (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (5) private nuisance; (6) violation of Civil Code section 1942.4; (7) violation of L.A.M.C. section 45.33; and (8) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200.

Now, Defendant David F. Freeman, individually and as Trustee of the David F. Freeman Living Trust (Defendant) moves to quash Plaintiffs’ subpoena for production of business records served on Orkin Pest Control.

Discussion

            Defendant argues that the subpoena served on Orkin Pest Control should be quashed because it is over-broad on its face and seeks records for non-Plaintiff units. In particular, the subpoena seeks:

1.      Any and all DOCUMENTS regarding or referring to work that [ORKIN] performed in any unit at the PROPERTY.

2. Any and all DOCUMENTS regarding or referring to bids, quotes, estimates or invoices created by YOU for work to be performed at the PROPERTY.

3. Any and all DOCUMENTS regarding or referring to payments for work that [ORKIN] have performed at the PROPERTY.

4. [ORKIN’s] entire file regarding the PROPERTY.

5. Any and all DOCUMENTS regarding any pest control services provided by [ORKIN] at the PROPERTY.

6. All DOCUMENTS which reflect communications between [ORKIN] and any owner of manager of the PROPERTY concerning the PROPERTY (including David Freeman and/or Monarch Apartment Owners, LLC and/or Crescent Canyon Corp. and/or any person or entity acting on their behalf).

7. All DOCUMENTS which reflect communications between [ORKIN] and any tenant(s) living at the PROPERTY.

8. Any and all DOCUMENTS which pertain to any pest control services YOU provided to and any owner or manager of the PROPERTY concerning the PROPERTY (including David Freeman and/or Monarch Apartment Owners, LLC and/or Crescent Canyon Corp. and/or any person or entity acting on their behalf).

9. All books, magazines, articles, or manuals relied on by you in treating any pest control services at the PROPERTY.

10. Any and all contracts or agreements entered into by and between YOU and any owner or manager of the PROPERTY concerning the PROPERTY (including David Freeman and/or Monarch Apartment Owners, LLC and/or Crescent Canyon Corp. and/or any person or entity acting on their behalf).

11. All photos [ORKIN] took, had taken, or have of the PROPERTY (including of any apartment unit), including in all native file formats (e.g., .jpg, .jpeg, .png, etc.)

12. All videos [ORKIN] took, had taken, or have of the PROPERTY (including of any apartment unit), including in all native file formats (e.g., .mp4, .mov, .avi, .wmv, etc.)

(Zakaria. ¶ 6, Exhibit D.)

            In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that the pest control records in non-Plaintiff units are relevant and admissible because they speak to Defendant’s notice of a building-wide cockroach infestation, and show Defendant’s motive, plan, and intent in refusing to address that infestation.

            In support of this position, Plaintiffs contend “[c]ockroaches and other vermin travel in between the walls from apartment to apartment in a multi-unit building such as the subject property. Plaintiffs’ entomology and pest control expert Josh Shoemaker will testify at trial that vermin travel within a single structure without respect for the boundaries drawn by civil society.” (6: 4-7.)

            The Court agrees that pest control records related to non-Plaintiffs units are relevant to show Defendant’s awareness of a widespread pest infestation at the building, and to show whether they knew or should have known they were not taking adequate steps to address it. (Pantoja v. Anton (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 87, 115.)

However, the Court finds that the scope should be narrowed to the units at issue, common areas, and any unit that shares a wall with Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ claims in this action arise from their tenancy in units 101, 108, 111, 112, 203, 210, 303, 311, 314 of the apartment complex. Ultimately, their ability to prevail turns on their ability to show the conditions within those apartments alone. Given the nature of infestations and vermin travel patterns, pest control records for common areas or units sharing a wall with Plaintiffs’ units could speak to Defendant’s notice of infestation issues which could have impacted Plaintiffs’ units. However, given that the apartment building has 43 units, it is overbroad to seek any and all pest records, communications, photos, and videos for all units, regardless of their location in connection to Plaintiffs’ unit, in order to show Defendant’s notice as to infestations in Plaintiffs’ units.

            Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to quash is granted in part, denied in part. The subpoena is narrowed to pest control records for the units at issue, common areas, and any unit that shares a wall ceiling, and/or floor with Plaintiffs.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  August    , 2022

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.